1) Trying to link illegitimacy to gay marriage is a pathetic stretch and I challenge you to provide a real source to back up such an argument. It is like arguing that people who like the color blue are more inclined to have skin cancer. One does not relate to the other. Trying to pretend it does demonstrates your lack of understanding of cause and relation.

2) When asked about Bin Laden, Bush DID in fact say "You know I don't spend that much time on him. I don't really think about him." Denying that Bush said this is BLATANTLY lying. Now you can try and spin WHY he said it, but he did say it.

3) Ok, so according to you, when Bush said, "These safeguard measures have now achieved their purpose and as a result of changed economic circumstances, it is time to lift them." about the steel tariffs he was lying? According to you he was forced to do it by the WTO NOT because of "changed economic circumstances"?

4) Who sold Saddam chemical weapons? The US. Who facilitated the deal?

5) When I have a little more time I'll provide a list of all the programs cut by Bush.

6) Your blind devotion to the Republican Party and refusal to admit any wrongdoing by it is, in a word, sad.

1) Trying to link illegitimacy to gay marriage is a pathetic stretch and I challenge you to provide a real source to back up such an argument. It is like arguing that people who like the color blue are more inclined to have skin cancer. One does not relate to the other. Trying to pretend it does demonstrates your lack of understanding of cause and relation.

2) When asked about Bin Laden, Bush DID in fact say "You know I don't spend that much time on him. I don't really think about him." Denying that Bush said this is BLATANTLY lying. Now you can try and spin WHY he said it, but he did say it.

3) Ok, so according to you, when Bush said, "These safeguard measures have now achieved their purpose and as a result of changed economic circumstances, it is time to lift them." about the steel tariffs he was lying? According to you he was forced to do it by the WTO NOT because of "changed economic circumstances"?

4) Who sold Saddam chemical weapons? The US. Who facilitated the deal?

5) When I have a little more time I'll provide a list of all the programs cut by Bush.

6) Your blind devotion to the Republican Party and refusal to admit any wrongdoing by it is, in a word, sad.

Its easy to link illegitimacy to gay marriage. Once you re-define an instiution, you change how people behave towards the institution. You de-link marriage from family, you damage traditional families, and I have the data to back it up (see Eurostat). You got nothin' on this one.

You and I both know that there are other words in that quote THAT CHANGE THE ENTIRE MEANING OF THE QUOTE! The full quote includes Bush saying he is worried about Al Qaeda, not bin Laden, because Al Qaeda is bigger than one man. Not only are you only providing a partial quote, you don't even provide the elipses that indicate that more words are being said!

Politicians do a lot of things to cover their ass. What's he supposed to say? "The WTO ruled against us and I'm backing down on a policy I never believed in anyway."? The WTO ruled the tariffs illegal. Read a newspaper every once and a while and these thing won't happen to you in public anymore.

The US never sold Iraq chemical weapons, and once again you prove that your mouth is bigger than your brain. We sold them precursor chemicals, or what are called dual use materials, that were sold under the pretense of agricultural research. And the chemicals in fact are used in the US for agricultural research. However, Iraq tried to use them to develop anthrax. This is very different than giving Iraq their chemical weapons. The bulk of Iraq's program was in Mustard, Sarin, VX, ricin, and botulinum. Not anthrax, which Iraq never weaponized anyway. So not only didn't we sell Iraq chemical weapons, we weren't even indirectly responsible for even a small protion of the Iraqi program because he never got far with his anthrax prgoram.

Social spending has gone up under Bush. How do I know? Becuase Republicans like me complain about his profligate spending!

You are a flaming idiot with a snotty attitude. Your learning curve is non-existent. You keep coming back with the same old tired crap and DNC talking points, and every time you get the same dominating rebuttal from some GOPer on the board. When are you going to figure out that your attacks have no merit whatsoever?

1) Trying to link illegitimacy to gay marriage is a pathetic stretch and I challenge you to provide a real source to back up such an argument. It is like arguing that people who like the color blue are more inclined to have skin cancer. One does not relate to the other. Trying to pretend it does demonstrates your lack of understanding of cause and relation.

2) When asked about Bin Laden, Bush DID in fact say "You know I don't spend that much time on him. I don't really think about him." Denying that Bush said this is BLATANTLY lying. Now you can try and spin WHY he said it, but he did say it.

3) Ok, so according to you, when Bush said, "These safeguard measures have now achieved their purpose and as a result of changed economic circumstances, it is time to lift them." about the steel tariffs he was lying? According to you he was forced to do it by the WTO NOT because of "changed economic circumstances"?

4) Who sold Saddam chemical weapons? The US. Who facilitated the deal?

5) When I have a little more time I'll provide a list of all the programs cut by Bush.

6) Your blind devotion to the Republican Party and refusal to admit any wrongdoing by it is, in a word, sad.

Its easy to link illegitimacy to gay marriage. Once you re-define an instiution, you change how people behave towards the institution. You de-link marriage from family, you damage traditional families, and I have the data to back it up (see Eurostat). You got nothin' on this one.

You and I both know that there are other words in that quote THAT CHANGE THE ENTIRE MEANING OF THE QUOTE! The full quote includes Bush saying he is worried about Al Qaeda, not bin Laden, because Al Qaeda is bigger than one man. Not only are you only providing a partial quote, you don't even provide the elipses that indicate that more words are being said!

Politicians do a lot of things to cover their ass. What's he supposed to say? "The WTO ruled against us and I'm backing down on a policy I never believed in anyway."? The WTO ruled the tariffs illegal. Read a newspaper every once and a while and these thing won't happen to you in public anymore.

The US never sold Iraq chemical weapons, and once again you prove that your mouth is bigger than your brain. We sold them precursor chemicals, or what are called dual use materials, that were sold under the pretense of agricultural research. And the chemicals in fact are used in the US for agricultural research. However, Iraq tried to use them to develop anthrax. This is very different than giving Iraq their chemical weapons. The bulk of Iraq's program was in Mustard, Sarin, VX, ricin, and botulinum. Not anthrax, which Iraq never weaponized anyway. So not only didn't we sell Iraq chemical weapons, we weren't even indirectly responsible for even a small protion of the Iraqi program because he never got far with his anthrax prgoram.

Social spending has gone up under Bush. How do I know? Becuase Republicans like me complain about his profligate spending!

You are a flaming idiot with a snotty attitude. Your learning curve is non-existent. You keep coming back with the same old tired crap and DNC talking points, and every time you get the same dominating rebuttal from some GOPer on the board. When are you going to figure out that your attacks have no merit whatsoever?

Regarding gay marriage, there is still a big difference between correlation and causation. I fail to see why encouraging monogamy among homosexuals leads to the breakdown of the family. Is society really better off encouraging homosexuals to not form stable, loving relationships with each other?

Gay marriage is a good thing for society for the same reason that straight marriage is; it promotes the creation of famlies and monogamous relationships.

I don't support delinking marriage and family; if gay couples are otherwise fit to adopt, I don't support not allowing them to. Now, if there are other factors other than simply their sexual preference that makes them unfit parents, by all means they shouldn't be allowed to adopt. Same thing for straight people, too.

Making interracial marriage legal changed the traditional definition of marriage, too, and in fact I am sure that illegitimate births and all other manners of bad things went up statistically in the years that followed as well.

Plus, why would redefining an institution automatically mean that people would change how they behave in a NEGATIVE way? Like I said, I feel that in this case, it would be redefined in a more positive way, since it would no longer discriminate against people on the basis of sexuality and would promote more monogamy and the creation of more stable relationships within ALL people. Why is that going to have a negative effect on society?

If you are worried about marriage being delinked from family, then it would make a lot more sense to pass a law banning 20 year old women from marrying 80 year old rich guys, or pass a law banning people like Britney Spears from marrying someone on a lark and then getting an annulment 24 hours later. I don't see any activity on either of those fronts, however. Gay people who sincerely love each other enough to want to get married are FAR from the greatest threat currently faced by the institution of marriage.

In any event, I don't support heterosexuals making a scapegoat out of gays and blaming them for their own irresponsible behavior within their marriages, anyway.

One reason no action is taken on the fronts you mention is that there is no support for the reform, as there is for gay marriage ballot initiatives. Another is that most people consider the matter settled whether they liked the outcome or not.

I get very suspicious when social liberals tell me that they're really the pro-family conservatives. When most of the drug users I know advocate legalizing drugs on the grounds that ti will reduce drug use, I smell something afoot. Same here. I find it a hard sell when Barney Frank tells me that he's the new advocate for monogamy and traditional families, especially when I have data that shows Scandanavia headed one direction while the rest of the world is headed another.

One reason no action is taken on the fronts you mention is that there is no support for the reform, as there is for gay marriage ballot initiatives. Another is that most people consider the matter settled whether they liked the outcome or not.

Of course there is no action on those, which tends to make ME very suspicious of the motives of most of those who oppose gay marriage. I realize that your motives are much different than most, and that you are not fueled by anti-gay bigotry and instead are motivated by the betterment of society as a whole, but I can just as well turn it around as you did in your next point. It goes both ways there. I don't think that anyone can rationally argue that gay marriage is the single biggest threat to traditional marriage and families, therefore those who support banning it but not other things that are more destructive are being intellectually dishonest about their goals.

I get very suspicious when social liberals tell me that they're really the pro-family conservatives. When most of the drug users I know advocate legalizing drugs on the grounds that ti will reduce drug use, I smell something afoot. Same here. I find it a hard sell when Barney Frank tells me that he's the new advocate for monogamy and traditional families, especially when I have data that shows Scandanavia headed one direction while the rest of the world is headed another.

As I said, correlation doesn't equal causation, and my arguments and examples on that point and others still stand.

I don't see why Barney Frank or other gay marriage advocates are any less qualified to fight for monagamy and traditional families than anyone else. Is there other evidence, other than his sexuality which doesn't prove anything that I can see, that Barney Frank opposes monogamy and strong families?

Social liberals aren't claiming to be conservative, but we definitely are pro-family. That's not a contradiction at all. Even if you don't agrree with social liberals, there's a big difference between saying that someone is misguided on the one hand and outright distrusting their motives altogether on the other.

I don't believe that economic conservatives hate poor people, but I do believe that their policies aren't good for America as a whole. There's no reason why that's a contradiction, either.

I don't see why Barney Frank or other gay marriage advocates are any less qualified to fight for monagamy and traditional families than anyone else. Is there other evidence, other than his sexuality which doesn't prove anything that I can see, that Barney Frank opposes monogamy and strong families?

Maybe because his boyfriend, who was about half his age, was running a prostitution ring from his house? (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

I agree with your basic point, that it's theoretically possible for homosexuals to have family values, but I don't think Barney Frank is the best example to use to make it. And I do think the reality is that homosexuals are, in general, more promiscuous and socially liberal than heterosexuals.

I don't see why Barney Frank or other gay marriage advocates are any less qualified to fight for monagamy and traditional families than anyone else. Is there other evidence, other than his sexuality which doesn't prove anything that I can see, that Barney Frank opposes monogamy and strong families?

Maybe because his boyfriend, who was about half his age, was running a prostitution ring from his house? (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

I agree with your basic point, that it's theoretically possible for homosexuals to have family values, but I don't think Barney Frank is the best example to use to make it. And I do think the reality is that homosexuals are, in general, more promiscuous and socially liberal than heterosexuals.

I don't see why Barney Frank or other gay marriage advocates are any less qualified to fight for monagamy and traditional families than anyone else. Is there other evidence, other than his sexuality which doesn't prove anything that I can see, that Barney Frank opposes monogamy and strong families?

Maybe because his boyfriend, who was about half his age, was running a prostitution ring from his house? (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

I agree with your basic point, that it's theoretically possible for homosexuals to have family values, but I don't think Barney Frank is the best example to use to make it. And I do think the reality is that homosexuals are, in general, more promiscuous and socially liberal than heterosexuals.

I did not know that about Frank. I still feel that attacking the messenger rather than the message is still fairly irrelevant and unproductive nonetheless. But thanks for pointing that out, since I asked.

As for them being more promiscuous, the fact that they can't get married certainly doesn't help matters any. I'm certainly not saying that it will be a panacea by any means, but I think that homosexual promiscuity will decrease if the institution of marriage is made available to them.

The homosexual community certainly has to step forward and decry a lack of responsibility within their own members; however, giving them equal rights and access to the advantages of marriage would certainly help matters as well.

"The Norwegians hate the Swedish and the Swedes they hate the FinnsThe Finns they hate the Russians and the Russians hate the YidsSpicks and Wops and Greasers; Kikes and Spades and Ginny HensHatred's blowin in the wind; 10 million outcasts"

In fact, there is not - the rate is declining. But all such statistical information is rather dubious.

But taking that line of reasoning - the rate of hiv is lowest in places like Saudi Arabia. Should we therefore emulate them? Seems safest to me, from an epidemiological perspective, to imprison women within Burkhas.

You are a flaming idiot with a snotty attitude. Your learning curve is non-existent. You keep coming back with the same old tired crap and DNC talking points, and every time you get the same dominating rebuttal from some GOPer on the board. When are you going to figure out that your attacks have no merit whatsoever?

You are an insulting little man who clearly cannot hold a rational conversation without turning to insults. Some day you're going to come to the realization that there is good and there is bad in both parties.

GAY MARRIAGEYears ago interracial marriage was taboo. Many argued that allowing an interracial marriage was against biblical teachings and altered the nature of marriage. Today I think we can agree that is ridiculous.

As for the argument about marriage, I do not believe that the state forms a marriage. They can give certain legal rights to a couple who wishes to be recognized as married, but only GOD can form a marriage. That being said, any 2 sane adults who want to be recognized by the state as married should be able to be recognized by the state as married. This doesn't mean that any church or any outside individual has to think of them as married, but they do have to respect their rights.

BUSH BIN LADEN QUOTEAhh ... I see, so parsing a Bush quote is no fair but when the Bushies parsed a Kerry quote it was ok? I see ... very nice. Double standard. Well done.

STEEL TARIFFS AND THE WTOActually the dropping of the steel tariffs had less to do with the WTO and more to do with the threat by European nations to impose tariffs on American goods. They had been saying this for weeks. The White House knew it was contemplating dropping the tariffs. But Bush's political arm wanted to grab the last bit of money he could get before they were dropped. It was a sleazy move. Typical of a politician.

SADDAM CHEMICAL WEAPONSDo you really need the history on this??

In 1981 US Sec of State, Alexander Haig reported to the Senate foreign relations committee that the relationship between the Soviet Union and Iraq was breaking down. An opportunity existed for the US to become "friendly" with Iraq (who were currently at war with Iran). They jumped at it.

Donald Rumsfeld was dispatched as a representative. Using its allies in the Middle East, Washington funnelled huge supplies of arms to Iraq. Declassified State Department cables described covert transfers of howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons to Baghdad in 1982-83 from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait. The January 1, 1984 Washington Post reported that the US had “informed friendly Persian Gulf nations that the defeat of Iraq in the three-year-old war with Iran would be ‘contrary to US interests' and has made several moves to prevent that result”.

A 1994 US Senate report revealed that US companies were licenced by the commerce department to export a “witch's brew” of biological and chemical materials, including bacillus anthracis (which causes anthrax) and clostridium botulinum (the source of botulism). The American Type Culture Collection made 70 shipments of the anthrax bug and other pathogenic agents. The report also noted that US exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare facilities and chemical warhead filling equipment. US firms supplied advanced and specialised computers, lasers, testing and analysing equipment.

Former US Intelligence operatives have come forward to say not only were we providing Iraq with the materials to make chemical weapons, we had experts there to show them how.

On March 16, 1988, Iraqi forces launched a poison gas attack on the Iraqi Kurdish village of Halabja, killing 5000 people. While that attack is today being touted by senior US officials as one of the main reasons why Hussein must now be “taken out”, at the time Washington's response to the atrocity was much more relaxed.

On September 8, 1988, the US Senate passed the Prevention of Genocide Act, which would have imposed sanctions on the Hussein regime. Immediately, the Reagan administration announced its opposition to the bill, calling it “premature”. The White House used its influence to stall the bill in the House of Representatives. When Congress did eventually pass the bill, the White House did not implement it.

SOCIAL PROGRAM CUT BY BUSHI think we can both agree that this administration spends uncontrollably. That being said, I'd argue that what they spend on isn't necessarily what I would spend on. 38 different programs in the Dept of Education (including school counseling and programs designed to improve poor children's reading skills) were killed by this administration. Bush cut funding for water projects, rural conservation, aid to state and local law enforcement agencies, the Amtrak passenger railroad, and federal prisons.

It is interesting to note that Bush proposed increasing defense spending by 7% (not including Iraq and Afghanistan costs this year and next) and domestic security by 10%. To pay for much of this Bush proposed outright cuts in the budgets of 7 of the 16 Cabinet-level agencies, including Agriculture, Justice and the Environmental Protection Agency.

So, 50 million people are stupid, aging, homophobic hillbillies? How dare you insult and denigrate people who do not agree with your viewpoints. I agree Bush is an idiot and his policies are going to send the USA down a road of ruin.

What about John Kerry, the "intellegent choice"?

Kerry did not take a clear stand on any issue. He is for the was in Iraq, he is against it. He paid for the Iraqi aid package and voted against it. He voted against body armour for the troops. Never once did he state how or when troops will be removed in Iraq.

Gay marriage, Kerry is against gay marriage personally, but he pandered his view to whatever audience he was speaking to. The man was so wishy washy.

Kerry's VP candidate John Edwards politically is an idiot. He got the VP nomination because of his looks and he is from the south. But, the people in his home state would not vote for him again, neither as a senator or as Vice president.

The deal with "blue states" and "red states", the truth of the matter is that most all the Kerry states have at least one large city in them (the exception is Vermont, NH, and Maine, yankee states voting for the Yankee). For example, if Chicago was a state, Illinois would of went to Bush. Same with Detroit and Michigan. If LA and San Francisco were their own entities, then Cali would of also voted Republican.

I could insult every voter in the USA, except for the 300,000 or so who had the guts and the vision to vote for Badnarik, the LP ticket.

Lastly, Democrats always nominate people we the people do not want to elect. Even Clinton won by only a plurality of the vote. The Democrats have not won a majority of the vote since 1976, a year some yokel from hillbilly country awkwardly took hold of the reigns of government. Let's also not forget other hick hillbilly Democrats, Robert "Klansman" Byrd, George Wallace, Lyndon Johnson. YEE HAW!

I find it amazing that you agree that Bush is sending this nation "down a road of ruin" but yet you won't vote for the one guy who had a chance of removing him from office.

I'll agree that John Kerry's positions on the issues weren't always black and white. You know why? Because not every issue is black and white!

Was he for the war in Iraq? Yes.Then why is he complaining about it? Because the Bush administration did it half-assed and didn't plan for the long-term ramifications of occupying Iraq!

What about the Iraqi aid package (which includes the body armour) and vote for and then against it? Kerry supported body armor for the troops, he opposed the additional pork that was attached to the bill (including building a parade ground for a military base which had long since been closed).

But how could he vote against it and then for it? Well, time for a civics lesson everyone! A bill can be voted on MANY times. Each incarnation of the bill can have different amendments attached to it. Kerry voted for the original bill. Then the GOP-controlled Congress refused to pass it unless they got the chance to pile some pork on top. THAT is when he voted against it.

What about gay marriage? He believes marriage is a man-woman relationship. But he also realizes THAT is a religious belief and that you must draw a distinction between religion and government. As a Catholic he holds fast to "thou shall have no other gods before the one true God". But that doesn't mean he will create a law banning the worship of non-Christian dieties!

What about John Edwards? Yes, John Edwards was picked purely for his 'likability'. Poll after poll after poll showed that John Edwards was America's top pick for VP (after John McCain). So, after McCain declined the nomination, Kerry followed the will of the people and chose Edwards.

Now, my piece of advice for you if you REALLY want to build a third party. Start small and build momentum. Go after state and local elections! Grab a seat or two in Congress. Don't be so arrogant as to believe that you can just go out and grab the Presidency! Badnarik and Nader were both running without a chance of winning. They were just on ego-trips!

Yep when the people on your side are calling the other candidate worse than Hitler it has tendency to hurt you not help you so he did misjudge it. Glad you wanted to see him say tha Wakie.

That was a few wacko's, it was not a party-wide thing.

Okay Michael Moore hated Bush so much he was willing to bind the truth every which way in order to tarnish the President. Howard Dean entertained theories that the President knew about Sept. 11th before it happened... Sorry but from what I saw the Democrats were a machine blinded by perhaps not a hate but a severe dislike for President Bush.. Remember all the ABBers? Both sides of their radicals the Republicans just did a much better job at hiding theirs then the Democrats did.

That is just my opinion take it or leave, shove it in the trash, frame it and put it over your fire place I dont care

Yep when the people on your side are calling the other candidate worse than Hitler it has tendency to hurt you not help you so he did misjudge it. Glad you wanted to see him say tha Wakie.

That was a few wacko's, it was not a party-wide thing.

Okay Michael Moore hated Bush so much he was willing to bind the truth every which way in order to tarnish the President. Howard Dean entertained theories that the President knew about Sept. 11th before it happened... Sorry but from what I saw the Democrats were a machine blinded by perhaps not a hate but a severe dislike for President Bush.. Remember all the ABBers? Both sides of their radicals the Republicans just did a much better job at hiding theirs then the Democrats did.

That is just my opinion take it or leave, shove it in the trash, frame it and put it over your fire place I dont care

I don't agree with Dr. Dean on that count. Anyway, I respectfully disagree with you.

Yep when the people on your side are calling the other candidate worse than Hitler it has tendency to hurt you not help you so he did misjudge it. Glad you wanted to see him say tha Wakie.

That was a few wacko's, it was not a party-wide thing.

Okay Michael Moore hated Bush so much he was willing to bind the truth every which way in order to tarnish the President. Howard Dean entertained theories that the President knew about Sept. 11th before it happened... Sorry but from what I saw the Democrats were a machine blinded by perhaps not a hate but a severe dislike for President Bush.. Remember all the ABBers? Both sides of their radicals the Republicans just did a much better job at hiding theirs then the Democrats did.

That is just my opinion take it or leave, shove it in the trash, frame it and put it over your fire place I dont care

I don't remember Dean entertaining theories that Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened. I'd love to know the basis for your charges there.

I cannot understand how someone can say the left has more whackos than the right. Just watch the conventions! The left had a very temperate convention focused on policy disagreement. The right had Zell "I challenge you to a Duel" Miller and Dick "vote for me or die" Cheney.

Yep when the people on your side are calling the other candidate worse than Hitler it has tendency to hurt you not help you so he did misjudge it. Glad you wanted to see him say tha Wakie.

That was a few wacko's, it was not a party-wide thing.

Okay Michael Moore hated Bush so much he was willing to bind the truth every which way in order to tarnish the President. Howard Dean entertained theories that the President knew about Sept. 11th before it happened... Sorry but from what I saw the Democrats were a machine blinded by perhaps not a hate but a severe dislike for President Bush.. Remember all the ABBers? Both sides of their radicals the Republicans just did a much better job at hiding theirs then the Democrats did.

That is just my opinion take it or leave, shove it in the trash, frame it and put it over your fire place I dont care

I don't remember Dean entertaining theories that Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened. I'd love to know the basis for your charges there.

I cannot understand how someone can say the left has more whackos than the right. Just watch the conventions! The left had a very temperate convention focused on policy disagreement. The right had Zell "I challenge you to a Duel" Miller and Dick "vote for me or die" Cheney.

""Despite all of this stupid bullsh-- that the Republican National Committee, or whatever the f--- they call them, that they were saying that they're all angry about how two of these ads were comparing Bush to Hitler? I mean, out of thousands of submissions, they find two. They're like fu--ing looking for Hitler in a hawstack. You now? I mean, George Bush is not Hitler. He would be if he fu--ing applied himself." (big, extended applause) "I mean he just isn't.""

"America, under Bush, is a danger to the world...It [beating Bush] is the central focus of my life,... a matter of life and death... When I hear Bush say, ‘You’re either with us or against us,’ it reminds me of the Germans. My experiences under Nazi and Soviet rule have sensitised me,..It would be too immodest for a private person to set himself up against the president, but it is, in fact the Soros Doctrine”.

Rep. James P. Moran "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this,... The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should."http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg031303.asp

Plenty, plenty more where this came from... The point I am trying to make is there is a lot of hate on both sides of the asile... Must I go over the number of Democrats who were saying things like Ronald Reagan is in hell just hours after he died?

Radicalism and hatred by any other name is still radicalism and hatred. Whether it be conservative or liberal.

HOWARD DEANNot to be rude here, but did you read that article about Dean? Directly from it .... "Although Dean said he does not believe Bush was tipped off about the assaults that killed nearly 3,000, he has made no apologies for raising the rumor." And the context in which he brought up the rumor was in saying that as long as information is supressed about what the government knew and when they knew it, people are going to develop outlandish theories.

JENNIFER ANNISTON & MARGARET CHOSince when do the statements of 2 private citizens reflect on an entire political party? I could cite dozens of quotes from Rush Limbaugh, Neil Borts, or any of the other Republican "talking heads".

THE RESTAs you acknowledge, the crap flies from both sides. But pretending that more flies from the left than the right is just plain blind.

HOWARD DEANNot to be rude here, but did you read that article about Dean? Directly from it .... "Although Dean said he does not believe Bush was tipped off about the assaults that killed nearly 3,000, he has made no apologies for raising the rumor." And the context in which he brought up the rumor was in saying that as long as information is supressed about what the government knew and when they knew it, people are going to develop outlandish theories.

JENNIFER ANNISTON & MARGARET CHOSince when do the statements of 2 private citizens reflect on an entire political party? I could cite dozens of quotes from Rush Limbaugh, Neil Borts, or any of the other Republican "talking heads".

THE RESTAs you acknowledge, the crap flies from both sides. But pretending that more flies from the left than the right is just plain blind.

Dean does not believe it but he certainly didn't mind getting the idea in the public's minds by bringing more attention to an outragous conspiracy theory.

Aniston and Cho's: There was a lot of attention given to celebs who severely disliked President Bush.

The rest: I never said there was less hate on either side. The Republicans just did a better job of hiding their radicals than the Democrats did.

Yep when the people on your side are calling the other candidate worse than Hitler it has tendency to hurt you not help you so he did misjudge it. Glad you wanted to see him say tha Wakie.

That was a few wacko's, it was not a party-wide thing.

Okay Michael Moore hated Bush so much he was willing to bind the truth every which way in order to tarnish the President. Howard Dean entertained theories that the President knew about Sept. 11th before it happened... Sorry but from what I saw the Democrats were a machine blinded by perhaps not a hate but a severe dislike for President Bush.. Remember all the ABBers? Both sides of their radicals the Republicans just did a much better job at hiding theirs then the Democrats did.

That is just my opinion take it or leave, shove it in the trash, frame it and put it over your fire place I dont care

I don't remember Dean entertaining theories that Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened. I'd love to know the basis for your charges there.

I cannot understand how someone can say the left has more whackos than the right. Just watch the conventions! The left had a very temperate convention focused on policy disagreement. The right had Zell "I challenge you to a Duel" Miller and Dick "vote for me or die" Cheney.

""Despite all of this stupid bullsh-- that the Republican National Committee, or whatever the f--- they call them, that they were saying that they're all angry about how two of these ads were comparing Bush to Hitler? I mean, out of thousands of submissions, they find two. They're like fu--ing looking for Hitler in a hawstack. You now? I mean, George Bush is not Hitler. He would be if he fu--ing applied himself." (big, extended applause) "I mean he just isn't.""

"America, under Bush, is a danger to the world...It [beating Bush] is the central focus of my life,... a matter of life and death... When I hear Bush say, ‘You’re either with us or against us,’ it reminds me of the Germans. My experiences under Nazi and Soviet rule have sensitised me,..It would be too immodest for a private person to set himself up against the president, but it is, in fact the Soros Doctrine”.

Rep. James P. Moran "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this,... The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should."http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg031303.asp

Plenty, plenty more where this came from... The point I am trying to make is there is a lot of hate on both sides of the asile... Must I go over the number of Democrats who were saying things like Ronald Reagan is in hell just hours after he died?

Radicalism and hatred by any other name is still radicalism and hatred. Whether it be conservative or liberal.

HOWARD DEANNot to be rude here, but did you read that article about Dean? Directly from it .... "Although Dean said he does not believe Bush was tipped off about the assaults that killed nearly 3,000, he has made no apologies for raising the rumor." And the context in which he brought up the rumor was in saying that as long as information is supressed about what the government knew and when they knew it, people are going to develop outlandish theories.

JENNIFER ANNISTON & MARGARET CHOSince when do the statements of 2 private citizens reflect on an entire political party? I could cite dozens of quotes from Rush Limbaugh, Neil Borts, or any of the other Republican "talking heads".

THE RESTAs you acknowledge, the crap flies from both sides. But pretending that more flies from the left than the right is just plain blind.

Your defense of Dean is weak. It allows him to slander the US government without having to provide evidence OR deal with the consequences of being a fringe lunatic. I doubt that if George Bush had said, "There are theories that the homosexuals want to convert all our children." And the next day said, "I don't believe that, but I don't apologize for raising the issue." There is no way you'd give him the slack you give Dean.

I doubt you could come up with an expletive laden tirade insisting that Bill Clinton is an incompetent version of Hitler from any of the people you named. I'd bet my house on it.

Wildcard has provided quoted from Democrats, including one who may be the next head of your party, demonstrated signs of serious mental instability. You have speculated that there are probably similar quotes from GOPers. Yet you provide none. That’s the difference. Republicans cite specific examples of this rap, Democrats claim "But everyone does it." And then provide no evidence that anyone BUT them does it. Talk about double standards.